It is not surprising that within an economic outlook which seems permanently set to "gloomy" many companies are having to think about reorganising their operations or restructuring their holding structures This article highlights some of the tax and other considerations which must be borne in mind when considering such reorganisations or restructurings with reference to some recent (and less recent) cases and changes in the law and points which have come to the fore in the current climate.

Recapitalisations

Under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer does not recognize gain or loss on the exchange of like-kind property. Before 1984, the Code did not specifically address so-called deferred exchanges - exchanges in which the taxpayer relinquished property and some time later received the replacement property - although at least one leading case did. The 1984 rules require that the taxpayer identify the replacement property within 45 days after the disposition and close on the replacement property and close within 180 days after the disposition.

With an increasing emphasis on identifying value in the marketplace, entrepreneurs have focused their efforts on acquiring debt instruments, senior secured and mezzanine, in particular. Two primary strategies are being employed with respect to the debt: (1) acquire the debt for the purposes of restructuring the terms with the borrower(s) or (2) acquire the debt for the purpose of exercising the creditor’s remedies (i.e., foreclosing on the equity).

As a general rule, a debtor realizes taxable income upon the partial or total cancellation of its debt. Special rules may apply, however, when the debtor is a “pass-through” entity—e.g., a partnership, a limited liability company (LLC) that is treated as a partnership for United States federal income tax purposes or a subchapter S corporation. Cancellation of debt (COD) income realized by a pass-through entity generally passes through to the entity’s owners, with each owner being required to report its allocable share of such income on its own income tax return.

A Virginia bankruptcy court has issued a decision that should be a major eye-opener for any entity that engages in tax-free exchanges under section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.

In the economic downturn, many corporations have filed or will file for bankruptcy.

On June 17, 2009, the Seventh Circuit examined the tax practitioner privilege in Valero Energy Corporation v. U.S., 103 AFTR 2d 2009-2683. Valero, a large oil refiner, expanded its operations in 2001 by acquiring Ultra Diamond Shamrock Corporation (“UDS”). Prior to the acquisition, Ernst & Young developed a restructuring and refinancing plan for UDS’s Canadian subsidiaries. Valero asked its tax advisors, Arthur Anderson, to review the plan and provide additional tax advice.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision earlier this year that is likely to have a significant impact on bankruptcy sales of property. In In re New 118th, Inc., 398 B.R. 791 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009), the court held that certain tax exemptions available pursuant to section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code in connection with transfers of property that occur "under a plan," apply to pre-confirmation sales that close after confirmation and are necessary to the consummation of the debtor's plan.

There is something for everyone in the suitably named Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009–including potential recoveries for unsecured creditors of a debtor reorganizing or liquidating pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Background

A recent decision provides new support for excluding a broad range of severance pay from FICA taxes—a position undercut by the taxpayer’s loss in CSX Corp. v. United States, 518 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). United States v. Quality Stores Inc., (W.D. Mich., Feb. 23, 2010), affirms a bankruptcy court’s conclusion that, contrary to Revenue Ruling 90-72, 1990-2 C.B.